It does NOT go against the constitution

The key word in the Fourth Amendment is UNREASONABLE. Because people are in plain view, in public, they should have no expectation of privacy. Capturing their movements on tape does not breach the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable search and seizure". Video surveillance cameras have been proven to make would-be offenders refrain from criminal activity due to the fact that they could be being watched. Video surveillance is often used in investigations as proof against a guilty party.

It goes against our constitution.

Our mass-surveillance program may protect the citizens from terrorism. However, this surveillance program against innocent American citizens has gone too far. In our fourth amendment, it clearly states that no searches, including communication intercepts, should be done unreasonably against American citizens unless given the warrant by the judges. This means that NSA, CIA, and the FBI are breaking our constitution. For those reasons, this mass surveillance program is very innappropriate.

Government surveillance is appropriate.

It is appropriate for the government to use its power to gather information if it will guarantee national security. Sometimes, people need to sacrifice a few civil liberties in order to stay safe. Most people who are innocent should not even worry about surveillance since they have not done anything wrong.

In the general sense of the question, yes

The government does need to carry out surveillance programs to an extent in order to keep people safe. It is getting excessive under the current administration and I think you would find few on either side of the aisle that disagree, but as a basic concept there does need to be some level of monitoring by the government to find threats before it's too late to stop them.

It does NOT go against the constitution

The key word in the Fourth Amendment is UNREASONABLE. Because people are in plain view, in public, they should have no expectation of privacy. Capturing their movements on tape does not breach the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable search and seizure". Video surveillance cameras have been proven to make would-be offenders refrain from criminal activity due to the fact that they could be being watched. Video surveillance is often used in investigations as proof against a guilty party.

"Better safe than sorry" Yeah right.

Many people who support the NSA and other government-run surveillance programs would argue that it's better to keep an eye on everyone to find a couple terrorists than to not spy on anyone at all. This is an invasion of privacy to anyone who isn't part of that tiny population. Most of the people who support abortion claim that they have a right to privacy, and this statement is correct. The right to privacy also applies to the regular citizens of the USA.

It goes against our constitution.

Our mass-surveillance program may protect the citizens from terrorism. However, this surveillance program against innocent American citizens has gone too far. In our fourth amendment, it clearly states that no searches, including communication intercepts, should be done unreasonably against American citizens unless given the warrant by the judges. This means that NSA, CIA, and the FBI are breaking our constitution. For those reasons, this mass surveillance program is very innappropriate.

Government distrust of citizens can lead to an unstable government.

As a country, we should all be on the same page. If the government is going to be secretive about things, then the people also have a right to be secretive. If the government is going to video, record, and listen in on the general public for no specific reason, then the general public should have a right to do all those things to the government, just because they 'deserve to know'. Furthermore, surveillance of citizens is violating the 4th amendment. Humans have a right to privacy.

Government surveillance is very inappropriate.

The notion that government surveillance is needed started because of the so-called terrorist threat. However, the surveillance has been mostly on the people that aren't a threat. If the terrorist threat is so big that the citizens need to be constantly monitored, then why aren't our extremely porous borders being closed? It doesn't make any sense and reveals the inappropriate nature of the surveillance.